British blogger Lionheart has been accused of inciting racial hatred. Do you believe in free speech? If you do, you should be angry.... He writes on his blog:
"I am currently out of the Country and on my return home to England I am going to be arrested by British detectives on suspicion of Stirring up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986. This charge if found guilty carries a lengthy prison sentence, more than what most paedophiles and rapists receive, and all for writing words of truth about the barbarity that is living in the midst of our children, which threatens the very future of our Country.Is it right that people should be arrested for writing things and thinking things that the powers that be do not approve of? Is the UK now like Saudi Arabia?
The cultural weapon in the hands of the modern Jihad within Great Britain, silencing the opposition using our own laws against us - The Dumb Filthy Kaffir's as the Moslem would say to his children behind closed doors.
What has become of my homeland, the land my forefathers fought and died for on the battlefields of the world when one of their children is forced into the position of facing years in prison for standing up for what is right and just within British society. At least my words of truth have obviously now reached people's eyes and ears, with the powers that be now intent on silencing me - Third World Tyranny in a supposed 21st Century democracy!
Tony Bennett Says: I have been asked to represent Paul ('Lionheart'). For the public record, here is a full copy of the e-mail sent by Ian Holden of Bedfordshire Police to `Lionheart' yesterday, Thursday 3 January 2008:
"The offence that I need to arrest you for is "Stir up Racial Hatred by displaying written material" contrary to sections 18(1) and 27(3) of the Public Order Act 1986. You will be arrested on SUSPICION of the offence. You would only be charged following a full investigation based on all the relevant facts and CPS consent. Paul I will see you on the 19/02/08 when I will tell you everything that you need to know. Due to being out of the office for six weeks I will not have access to my email as of tomorrow 04/01/08.There are already a number of aspects about this case involving not only `Lionheart' but concerning other friends of his which are almost certain to result in a complaint being made to the Independent Police Complaints Commission.
After my success in getting the I.P.C.C. to agree to a top-level, `managed', investigation into *38* separate complaints about Essex Police's woeful first investigation in 2001/2 into the death violent death of Stuart Lubbock (which is ongoing), and my success this week in getting the I.P.C.C. to enquire into another disastrous set of Essex Police investigations, this time into their three so-called `investigations' into the death of Lee Balkwell in controversial circumstances in the early hours of 18 July 2002*, my mentioning the I.P.C.C. is no idle threat. Bedfordshire Police had better be very careful....
One of the issues here, which Bedfordshire Police may well have to account for in due course, is the way they have approached this investigation. I will not say more otherwise I would be breaching a confidence. The way Bedfordshire Police seem to have put it, it is words on a website that they say amount to `LionHeart' breaching the `incitement to racial' hatred provisions of the Public Order Act 1986.
It seems that his main campaign is against Islamist (note I do not say Islamic) terrorism based in and around Luton. Let us bring to mind Bedfordshire Police's abject failure to deal with the Islamist murderers who killed 52 people and maimed scores more in their 7/7 bombings. The Muslim murderers met and planned their attacks in Luton. And set off from Luton railways station on their murderous mission. There are, in Luton, Islamists involved in planning terrorist offences, involved in drug dealing to which Bedfordshire Police turn a blind eye, and involved in other criminal activity. LionHeart speaks out against all this - and Bedfordshire Police decide to go after - who? ....
Let those, like Lionheart, who have the courage to speak out against Islamist militancy and terrorism, be handed medals and bravery awards, not interviews under caution by the politically correct and ineffective Bedfordshire Police.
Lionheart has never called for violence, and also he's not talking out of his ass either - he's basically just reporting whats happening in his town. He only got into this because he was an anti-drug educator who was researching the drugs trade in Luton and discovered that the drug dealers were largely Muslim and justifying their business as jihad since drug taking harms kaffirs, and he figured out the money was going towards organizations that support jihad. Sounds pretty reasonable to me that he is concerned.
And how on earth can anyone call him violent or paranoid? He's proved that his arrest threat is very, terrifyingly real, and meanwhile he's totally non-violent - the man is a devoted Christian for God's sake!
This is terrible. The people on here who are dismissing this guy are not being realistic. He is not a racist, he is not full of hate - only justified fear - and he is not inciting racist anything - he's talking about followers of a religion, not an ethnic group!!!
More here. See also here
Bishop says Muslim extremism creates UK "no-go areas"
Making Muslims furious over his comments -- of course
Muslim groups reacted with fury after a senior Church of England bishop accused Islamic extremists of creating "no-go areas" for non-Muslims in Britain. The Bishop of Rochester, the Rt Rev Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said communities dominated by radical Islam give a hostile reception to Christians and those from other faiths.
In the Sunday Telegraph, he condemned the use of loudspeakers to spread the call to prayer and compared intimidation by radical Muslims to far-right extremism. He writes: "...there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into 'no-go' areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.
"Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an 'Islamic' character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer."
Mohammed Shafiq, a spokesman for the Ramadhan Foundation, a Muslim youth group, caalled on the bishop to resign. "His article is once again an attempt to whip up hatred against Muslims and cause division," he said.
Ajmal Masroor, spokesman for the Islamic Society of Great Britain, said: "It's nonsense. It's a distortion of reality. I believe our communities are far more integrated than they were 10 years ago. If the Church of England had an iota of fairness in their minds they would definitely take serious action."
Inayat Bunglawala, assistant secretary-general of the Muslim Council of Britain, accused the bishop of scaremongering. "Bishop Nazir-Ali appears to be exercised by what he perceives as the decline in the influence of Christianity upon this country, but trying to frantically scaremonger about Islam and Muslims seems to us to be a rather unethical way of trying to reverse this," he said.
A spokesman for the department of Communities and Local Government said most Muslims found the views of extremists "completely abhorrent". He said: "The overwhelming majority of Muslims are peaceful, make a huge contribution to British life and find the views of a small minority of violent extremists completely abhorrent. Britain also has a proud tradition of different communities living together side by side. But we are not complacent - the Government has completely re-balanced its community cohesion strategy putting far greater emphasis on promoting integration and shared British values (as the Bishop acknowledges in his article)."
Comment from a British reader:
According to Tory and liberal spokespersons, Bishop Nazir Ali supposedly was being divisive and factually incorrect. In reality he was telling the truth that ought to have been told decades ago - that significant areas of the uk have become controlled by Islam such that non-muslims cannot live there. One such area is Alum Rock in Birmingham. I saw for myself that a nominally Christian school in Alum Rock Rd had 100.00 percent of the children muslim-parented (or thus-dressed).
I myself have encountered the harassment that drives others out of "muslim" areas. All this is entirely in line with the rest of the reality of the "religion of peace" which in reality is the personality cult of terrorist Mohammed (e.g. see opening of sura 59 of his Quran, justifying his eco-terrorism against peaceful civilians who failed to show him sufficient reverence).
Likewise, note the extensive rioting and deaths following Bhutto's assassination. Was there anything similar after the Pope's attempted assassination (by a Muslim), or of JFK's assassination, or the assassination of theo van Gogh (again by a Muslim)? The difference is that Islam = terrorist cult. Genuine Islam that is, (though all who label themselves as Muslims join in with giving reverence to the terrorist book and its terrorist author).
If holocaust denial is a crime, how much greater a crime is the Jihad Denial that pretends away the greatest evil in history, responsible for far more millions of deaths over the centuries.... AND continues ongoing right now.
Another comment here
Squashing debate like mosquitoes
By Mark Steyn
Naseem Mithoowani, Khurrum Awan, Muneeza Sheikh and Daniel Simard write that "some clarifications are in order" re: The Calgary Herald's coverage of their complaint to at least three of Canada's many "human rights" commissions about an excerpt from my book, America Alone, published by Maclean's. So, in that spirit, let me clarify one point of their column,"Debate denied over Maclean's Muslim article," which ran Saturday. They cite the following quote as an "extract from Steyn's article": "The number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes."
That line certainly appears in my text, but they're not my words. Rather, they were said by a prominent Scandinavian Muslim, Mullah Krekar, to a respectable Norwegian newspaper. The imam was boasting at how Islam would outbreed Europe: "We're the ones who will change you . . . Just look at the development within Europe, where the number of Muslims is expanding like mosquitoes. Every western woman in the EU is producing an average of 1.4 children. Every Muslim woman in the same countries is producing 3.5 children."
This is the nub of Messrs Mithoowani, Awan, Sheikh and Simard's complaints against Maclean's: They're objecting to a Canadian magazine quoting accurately the statements of leading Muslims. And at least two of Canada's "human rights" commissions, to their shame, have accepted their absurd proposition that accurately quoting leading Muslims is somehow "Islamophobic."
The complainants were not "denied debate." They could -- as many Maclean's readers (infidel and Muslim alike) did on the letters page -- have had all the debate they wanted in the weeks after the article appeared. Instead, they waited five months before going in to see Maclean's editors, which is only marginally less ridiculous than me wandering in and demanding a right of reply to the Calgary Herald's rotogravure special on the Relief of Mafeking. They then demanded, among other ludicrous conditions, money for their "cause."
They and their friends at the Canadian Islamic Congress are seemingly not interested in stimulating debate, but only in shutting it down, by making it more trouble than it's worth for editors to run articles on one of the central questions of the age: Islam's relationship with a dying West. In using quasi-judicial coercion to squash debate, they make one of the central points of my argument -- that a proportion of Islam is inimical to western traditions of freedom -- more eloquently than I ever could.
It is puzzling to me, even granted the cobwebbed modishness of these misbegotten creations of the Trudeaupian Seventies, why the Canadian and British Columbia "Human Rights" Commissions regard it as within their jurisdiction to regulate the editorial decisions of privately owned magazines. But any Canadian interested in freedom of expression should be deeply concerned by the commissions' willingness to hear this "case."
Just don't throw sticks and stones
There's a lot of difference between hitting someone and shouting at them. I defend my right to abuse footballers -- says Mick Hume
For the first time in 2008, I fear I must disagree with "all right-thinking people" ? by defending the liberty of football fans to shout abuse at opponents, their own players, referees, or even Sir Alex Ferguson. Today I am off to Old Trafford, and if Manchester United play as badly as on Saturday it will not be best wishes for the new year that 75,000 of us give out to the team.
Will we still be free to do so next year? A crusade against crowd abuse has taken off since Sol Campbell, the Portsmouth defender, rang the Today programme to demand that the FA and the Government protect him from rude words. Campbell said "light banter" was acceptable (so Stephen Fry should be OK) but not personal abuse: "If this happened in the street you'd be arrested. This is a human rights situation." His indignant pose has been backed by football figures from Fergie and ArsSne Wenger downwards, and by esteemed sports writers who say that verbal abuse is "violent". No, it isn't, a distinction made clear in the old playground saw about sticks and stones. Mixing up words and deeds is dangerous.
And so is mixing up football and real life. What goes on at a football ground is rightly not governed by the same rules as events "in the street". As one of the game's thinkers, Campbell might consider Freud's thoughts on different parts of the human psyche. Football is the home ground of the id, the more emotional, irrational side of the brain. That is why people talk and behave there as they would not elsewhere. Sport can take us out of ourselves for worse as well as for better. But if you want to make it conform to the etiquette of everyday life, you might as well ban football altogether.
As it happens, there is already less abuse in the sanitised all-seater stadiums of today. Standards of terrace wit have certainly declined, but at its best that was less gentle banter than savage wordplay. What has risen is the sensitivity of players. Partly this reflects their celebrity status. Mostly it is a by-product of the epidemic of thin-skin syndrome sweeping society, so that causing offence can be deemed the worst offence.
Fans are not immune either ? Arsenal supporters are even suing their own club over offensive language from other Arsenal fans. Not content with insisting that players act like Mary Poppins, some now demand that the crowd behave as a mass role model too.
The funny thing is that Campbell's crusaders seem to have suffered the same loss of perspective as the more hysterically abusive fans. They all attribute far too much importance to what happens in the game of football. As more sensible voices have observed, there are worse things in life than being shouted at. Ask those laying scarves in mourning outside Motherwell's stadium
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here.